Right, so I'd be forcibly prevented from selling property to non-citizens?

It doesn't really matter what terminology is used to legitimise the use of force, it's still force.

The only justifiable limitation on the use of property is that it cannot be used in such a way that it infringes upon the rights of others. How does selling property to a non-white person infringe upon anyone else's rights?

Well, through your line of reasoning, property rights should extend to the right of lawful secession from the nation state because you own the land and are technically not infringing on the rights of others.

Again, the right to property is derived from the community, not from anything else. In crafting a law, or certain legislation, the community must impose certain restrictions validating the intergrity of the community.

If "potential actions" were an infringement of rights, how exactly would you prove that a particular action was going to be performed? We're not living in Minority Report (a film where the police are able to predict the future, in case you don't know).

Well, through your line of reasoning, property rights should extend to the right of lawful secession from the nation state because you own the land and are technically not infringing on the rights of others.

Correct, which is why I think free-market capitalism, which I support, would be the best, and perhaps only system which would make an all-white nation possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son of Liberty

Again, the right to property is derived from the community, not from anything else. In crafting a law, or certain legislation, the community must impose certain restrictions validating the intergrity of the community.

The United States constitution states that rights are derived from the nature of individual human beings. This alone does not prove that it is correct, however, assuming you live in the United States, rights are not derived from the community.

It would stand to reason that if value is diminished along with liberty, then the pursuit of anything else becomes a moot point.

Quote:

If "potential actions" were an infringement of rights, how exactly would you prove that a particular action was going to be performed? We're not living in Minority Report (a film where the police are able to predict the future, in case you don't know).

Interestingly, I've seen several allusions to that movie lately. I can only deduce that it must have struck some newfound relevance to the leftist mind.

But I digress...

From a standpoint of personal welfare, there is no prescient need to prove that anything is imminent where the perception of probablity exists, particularly when buffetted by statistical evidence.

Correct, which is why I think free-market capitalism, which I support, would be the best, and perhaps only system which would make an all-white nation possible.

You support an anarchist position. You support individualistic self rule in which rights can be justified by any position, real, or imagined. The problem lies in the fact that without communal backing, or a common understanding, any rights will be stepped on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkReaver13

The United States constitution states that rights are derived from the nature of individual human beings. This alone does not prove that it is correct, however, assuming you live in the United States, rights are not derived from the community.

Are we talking about the US Constitution now? Understand that the constitution takes in account personal liberty, but these ideas are only applicable when a community of people adopt them.